4 ms·

I'd just call it "road rage." There's some research into this and my high-level understanding is that when people feel "safe inside their armor" - whether that'

I'd just call it "road rage." There's some research into this and my high-level understanding is that when people feel "safe inside their armor" - whether that's the metal of the car or the semi-anonymity of the internet, their animal instincts come out. It's fueled from both directions. In a tweet you don't really have context or body language or any of the other signals to tell you how someone means their message to be taken, so it's a lot easier to unintentionally offend. And then because you don't have to face the consequences of digitally "throwing a punch" a lot of people just fire off a nasty tweet without really caring. I guess I see it as not surprising. Civilization is fragile, and the institutions that hold it up take generations to build. All of it is basically a thin veneer over our animal selves that helps us individually and collectively function as a higher level creature than we really are. The internet fundamentally changes most things about communication and therefore human interaction and therefore the institutions of civilization itself. And really, looking back at the original internet ethos, that was kind of the point. So it shouldn't be surprising that something we use to "disrupt" civilization is in fact disruptive to civilization.

savanaly 8y ago
Huh, that's interesting because introspection tells me it's the opposite for me. When I'm in my safe zone is when I can comfortably be rational and calm almost all the time. If I ever said something rash or that I didn't mean it would probably be when someone engages me and makes me feel uncomfortable in real life, never over the internet.
- burlesona 8y ago
  Yeah I mean people are all different. I know what you mean about feeling calmer behind the keyboard, something about seeing what I'm about to say often makes me tone it down or rephrase it. Not everyone goes nuts behind the wheel of a car either. But the thing is when the potential mob is the entire national or world population it doesn't take a very large percentage of the mob going "road rage" to turn the thing violent, you know what I mean? It's like the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" problem.
  - chibg10 8y ago
    It's complicated I think. Behind the keyboard, there generally aren't the same social pressures (due to anonymity and often others aren't directing their thoughts at you as an individual, but rather as a group) and time constraints to organize thoughts that come with oral communication. This, in many cases, allows for better and more rational discussions. On the other hand, when people do directly address on the internet behind the veil of anonymity, the lack of social pressures also removes disincentives to act like hooligans. It's different form of communication and has its advantages and disadvantages.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
It is what you are saying, and exacerbated by the huge gap in power and control between elites/politicians and the average person. You have CEOs and politicians making decisions that ruin people's lives. With Twitter, people are suddenly put at the same level where they can speak back to power, directly and angrily.
- burlesona 8y ago
  Yes, angrily. It's a channel that somewhat rewards anger, too, since the nasty tweet probably has a whole bunch of other people who "kind of wanted to say that" who will retweet and like, since it lets them get in on the screed without feeling fully guilty of saying it themselves. And you know how it is with these things, when you see anything you wrote get retweeted a ton or liked a ton, it gives you that kind of thrill. So the angry voice gets a bunch of positive reinforcement.
- larsiusprime 8y ago
  Another equally valid frame is that you have a system designed by those same CEO's that explicitly encourages people to be as pissed off as possible, all the time, so their rage can be cynically farmed for clicks and ads.
  - burlesona 8y ago
    Absolutely this too. There's a lot of money to be made from making people angry (see cable news). I don't know anyone who makes money calming the crowd down. Is there such thing as a social media mob therapist? :)
travisoneill1 8y ago
This. How many times have you said casually "I'm going to kill ...?" Probably a lot, but now with Twitter it's a death threat. I post under real name to protect against that internet anonymity psychology.

savanaly 8y ago

Huh, that's interesting because introspection tells me it's the opposite for me. When I'm in my safe zone is when I can comfortably be rational and calm almost all the time. If I ever said something rash or that I didn't mean it would probably be when someone engages me and makes me feel uncomfortable in real life, never over the internet.

burlesona 8y ago
Yeah I mean people are all different. I know what you mean about feeling calmer behind the keyboard, something about seeing what I'm about to say often makes me tone it down or rephrase it. Not everyone goes nuts behind the wheel of a car either. But the thing is when the potential mob is the entire national or world population it doesn't take a very large percentage of the mob going "road rage" to turn the thing violent, you know what I mean? It's like the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" problem.
- chibg10 8y ago
  It's complicated I think. Behind the keyboard, there generally aren't the same social pressures (due to anonymity and often others aren't directing their thoughts at you as an individual, but rather as a group) and time constraints to organize thoughts that come with oral communication. This, in many cases, allows for better and more rational discussions. On the other hand, when people do directly address on the internet behind the veil of anonymity, the lack of social pressures also removes disincentives to act like hooligans. It's different form of communication and has its advantages and disadvantages.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

It is what you are saying, and exacerbated by the huge gap in power and control between elites/politicians and the average person. You have CEOs and politicians making decisions that ruin people's lives. With Twitter, people are suddenly put at the same level where they can speak back to power, directly and angrily.

burlesona 8y ago
Yes, angrily. It's a channel that somewhat rewards anger, too, since the nasty tweet probably has a whole bunch of other people who "kind of wanted to say that" who will retweet and like, since it lets them get in on the screed without feeling fully guilty of saying it themselves. And you know how it is with these things, when you see anything you wrote get retweeted a ton or liked a ton, it gives you that kind of thrill. So the angry voice gets a bunch of positive reinforcement.
larsiusprime 8y ago
Another equally valid frame is that you have a system designed by those same CEO's that explicitly encourages people to be as pissed off as possible, all the time, so their rage can be cynically farmed for clicks and ads.
- burlesona 8y ago
  Absolutely this too. There's a lot of money to be made from making people angry (see cable news). I don't know anyone who makes money calming the crowd down. Is there such thing as a social media mob therapist? :)

travisoneill1 8y ago

This. How many times have you said casually "I'm going to kill ...?" Probably a lot, but now with Twitter it's a death threat. I post under real name to protect against that internet anonymity psychology.